EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5887. December 16, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . LOOK CHAW (alias LUK

CHIU) , defendant-appellant.

Thos. D. Aitken for appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. SHIPS AND SHIPPING; OPIUM IN TRANSIT; LANDING OF CONTRABAND

GOODS; JURISDICTION. Although the mere possession of an article of prohibited use
in the Philippine Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any local port, does not, as
a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of the Islands, such vessel being
considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does not apply when
the article, the use of which is prohibited in the Islands, is landed from the vessel upon
Philippine soil; in such a case an open violation of the laws of the land is committed,
with respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the
commission of the crime, no court other than that established in the said place has
jurisdiction of the offense, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.

DECISION

ARELLANO , C.J : p

The rst complaint led against the defendant, in the Court of First Instance of
Cebu, stated that he "carried, kept, possessed and had in his possession and control, 96
kilograms of opium," and that "he had been surprised in the act of selling 1,000 pesos
worth prepared opium."
The defense presented a demurrer based on two grounds, the second of which
was the more than one crime was charged in the complaint. The demurrer was
sustained, as the court found that the complaint contained two charges, one, for the
unlawful possession of opium, and the other, for the unlawful sale of opium, and,
consequence of that ruling, it ordered that the scal should separated one charge from
the other and le a complaint for each violation; this, the scal did, and this cause
concerns only the unlawful possession of opium. It is registered as No. 375, in the Court
of First Instance of Cebu, and as No. 5887 on the general docket of this court.
The facts of the case are contained in the following finding of the trial court:
"The evidence, it says, shows that between 11 and 12 o'clock a. m. on the
present month (stated as August 19, 1909), several persons, among them Messrs.
Jacks and Milliron, chief of the department of the port of Cebu and internal-
revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went abroad the steamship Erroll to inspect
and search its cargo, and found, first in a cabin near the saloon, one sack (Exhibit
A) and afterwards in the hold, another sack (Exhibit B). The sack referred to as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Exhibit A contained 49 cans of opium, and the other, Exhibit B, the larger sack,
also contained several cans of the same substance. The hold, in which the sack
mentioned in Exhibit B was found, was under the defendant's control, who
moreover, freely and of his own will and accord admitted that this sack, as well as
the other referred to in Exhibit B and found in the cabin, belonged to him. The said
defendant also stated, freely and voluntarily, that he had bought these sacks of
opium, in Hongkong with the intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or
Vera Cruz, and that, as his hold had already been searched several times for
opium, he ordered two other Chinamen to keep the sack. Exhibit A."
It is to be taken into account that the two sacks of opium, designated as Exhibits
A and B, properly constitute the corpus delicti. Moreover, another lot of four cans of
opium, marked, as Exhibit C, was the subject matter of investigation at the trial, and with
respect to which the chief of the department of the port of Cebu testi ed that they were
found in the part of the ship where the remen habitually sleep, and that they were
delivered to the rst of cer of the ship to be returned to the said remen after the
vessel should have left the Philippines, because the remen and crew of foreign vessels,
pursuant to the instructions he had from the Manila custom-house, were permitted to
retain certain amounts of opium, always provided it should not be taken shore.
And, nally, another can of opium, marked "Exhibit D," is also corpus delicti and
important as evidence in this cause. With regard to this the internal-revenue agent
testified as follows:
"FISCAL. What is it?
"WITNESS. It is a can opium which was bought from the defendant by a secret-
service agent and taken to the office of the governor to prove that the
accused had opium in his possession to sell."
On motion by the defense, the court ruled that this answer might be stricken out
"because it refers to a sale." But, with respect to this answer, the chief of the
department of customs had already given this testimony, to wit:
"FISCAL. Who asked you to search the vessel?
"WITNESS. The internal-revenue agent came to my office and said that a party
brought him a sample of opium and that the same party knew that there
was more opium on board the steamer, and the agent asked that the vessel
be searched."
The defense moved that this testimony be rejected, on the ground of its being
hearsay evidence, and the court only ordered that the part thereof "that there was more
opium, on board the vessel" be stricken out.
The defense, to abbreviate proceedings, admitted that the receptacles mentioned
as Exhibits A, B, and C, contained opium and were found on board the steamship Erroll,
a vessel of English nationality, and that it was true that the defendant stated that these
sacks of opium were his and that he had them in his possession.
According to the testimony of the internal-revenue agent, the defendant stated to
him, in the presence of the provincial scal, of a Chinese interpreter (who afterwards
was not needed, because the defendant spoke English), the warden of the jail, and four
guards, that the opium seized in the vessel had been bought by him in Hongkong, at
three pesos for each round can and ve pesos for each one of the others, for the
purpose of selling it, as contraband, in Mexico and Puerto de Vera Cruz; that on the 15th
the vessel arrived at Cebu, and on the same day he sold opium; that he had tried to sell
opium for P16 a can; that he had a contract to sell an amount of the value of about
P500; that the opium found in the room of the other two Chinamen prosecuted in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 another cause, was his, and that he had left it in their stateroom to avoid its being found
in his room, which had already been searched many times; and that, according to the
defendant, the contents of the large sack was 80 cans of opium, and of the small one,
49, and the total number, 129.
It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it
came from Hongkong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and
Cebu.
The defense moved for a dismissal of the case, on the grounds that the court had
no jurisdiction to try the same and the facts concerned therein did not constitute a
crime. The scal, at the conclusion of his argument, asked that the maximum penalty of
the law be imposed upon the defendant, in view of the considerable amount of opium
seized. The court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction, inasmuch as the crime had been
committed within its district, on the wharf of Cebu.
The court sentenced the defendant to ve years' imprisonment, to pay a ne of
P10,000, with additional subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, though not to
exceed one third of the principal penalty, and to the payment of the costs. It further
ordered the con scation, in favor of the Insular Government, of the exhibits presented in
the case, and that, in the event of an appeal being taken or a bond given, or when the
sentenced should have been served, the defendant be not released from custody, but
turned over to the customs authorities for the purpose of the ful llment of the existing
laws on immigration.
From this judgment, the defendant appealed to this court.
The appeal having been heard, together with the allegations made therein by the
parties, it is found: That, although the mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in
these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a
general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such
vessel being considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does not
apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands, in the
present case a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus
committing an open violation of the laws of the land, with respect to which, as it is a
violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime, only the
court established in that said place itself had competent jurisdiction, in the absence of
an agreement under an international treaty.
It is also found: That, even admitting that the quantity of the drug seized, the
subject matter of the present case, was considerable, it does not appear that, on such
account, the two penalties xed by the law on the subject, should be imposed in the
maximum degree.
Therefore, reducing the imprisonment and the ne imposed to six months and
P1,000, respectively, we af rm in all other respects the judgment appealed from, with
the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com